Yep, probably meant the "assault weapons" ban rather than fully automatic weapons that have never been legal

Not sure of the stats on how many of the shootings since the ban was lifted that were with guns or ammunition clips previously unavailable, and how many with guns we've never restricted.

The rifle used in all of the Connecticut shootings (except for the gunman's suicide, for which he used a Glock handgun) was a Bushmaster .223, which was one of the weapons whose semi-automatic firing mode was restricted by the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

It's a variant of the main military rifle in the U.S.

Before the ban expired, it was the weapon of choice of the D.C. snipers.

It was also the weapon of choice in the mall shootings last week.

If they focused their advertising around that, sales would go up.

*shrug* Who am I kidding? Sales will go up regardless.

There will be enough lag time between any proposed ban and when it goes into effect that we will see a whole bunch of whatevers made and sold in the time that is available to sell them legally. AND likely all the ones sold legally since 2004 will still be on the street. Just adds a bit to the resale price.

I also saw a note that the Aurora weapon was one of the ones banned, but there was a gun similar to it that wasn't so the ban may not have made much difference in that case.

The thing here is that the purchase laws worked as required. This nutcase went into a gun store and was told that he couldn't get a gun because for the mandatory delay and investigation that is required for a gun purchase.

He didn't want to wait. So he murdered his mom and stole her guns. Really, that part doesn't seem like a gun control issue to me; criminals will always get guns through illegal methods such as theft and murder.

We could argue that guns shouldn't exist in the first place, but they do and they aren't going anywhere soon. There certainly isn't enough support for a constitutional amendment.

Instead, let's talk about the assault weapon ban, because it had a key point. Basically, it didn't reduce gun violence, for the simple reason that, as stated above, criminals don't go into gun shops to buy guns.

But one thing it did do was, in general, limit the cartridges for semi-automatics to a maximum of 10 rounds. That might have helped dramatically in CT. Or it might have made little difference. We'll never know. But I'd cetainly support reinstituting a limit on rounds in a semi-automatic cartridge. If it just reduces the murders in a mass-murder situation, that's at least something positive.

LAST EDITED ON 12-17-12 AT 02:24 PM (EST)

Hey, a lively discussion. About time.

To Pepe:

Yeah, there is a need for semi-automatic weapons in hunting. Maybe not like the human body needs sustenance, but ask any bird/waterfowl hunter who uses a semi-automatic shotgun (often incorrectly referred to as an automatic, thus compounding the confusion on this the issue). Which, incidentally is limited by wildlife regs. to three shells. Or ask any varmint hunter.

I‘m not familiar with hunting regs. in Canada, but I know there is a rich hunting culture there and I believe that banning semi-automatics there would not be something that Canadian hunters would tolerate.

Think of how many backwoods tragedies would occur if constables tried to check all backwoods hunter weapon collections and collect the semi-automatics.

In General:

Trying to ban semi-automatic hunting weapons (on the basis that they are simply “semi-automatic”) is futile; they have been in use for over a half century now. WWII GI’s brought them home (many many M-1 carbines, and maybe others). Many hunters prefer semi-automatic weapons, they are useful, and that second shot is often the difference between hunting success and failure, or between a wounded animal and a dead animal. When hunting, a dead animal is much the preferred outcome. Varmint hunters use semiautomatic guns almost exclusively. You just can’t hunt an animal on the move without a quick second shot available.

As for the assault weapons ban that expired recently (whenever it was), this was problematic also. I think the real problem there comes down to definition, because, except for the military add-ons like laser sighting, night sighting, etc, assault weapons are actually used for hunting. They are actually used as hunting weapons. So, again, apart from limiting magazine capacity, how could a law be crafted to differentiate the two?

Many hunters prefer the lighter, more accurate, less susceptible to field failures and corrosion, and higher impact so called "assault" weapons to more traditionally designed walnut burl stocked hunting weapons. In short, what makes a military weapon good for hunting a human enemy also makes an excellent weapon for sport hunting of animals. So, apart from mag capacity, what really is an effective difference that can be legislated so as to exclude "assault" weapons?

Over simplifying; banning a weapon that is labeled an 'assault" weapon would force the Mfg's to label it as something else (i.e. "hunting", or "target gun") more legal and ensure that there are some who would indeed use it as such. BTW, there are target gun classifications that require semi-automatic weapons.

So, you ban an assault weapon because of it’s military like appearance or heritage, and gun makers read the detail specifications of the law and design a weapon that is technically a hunting weapon (per legal definition). One that can be used with results just as deadly as any “assault" weapon.

If Mr Lanza had not had his mom's Bushmaster to choose from, would he have not grabbed one of her two "hunting" rifles? Or what if he only carried out his insanity with only the pistols, would the outcome been different? And what are the odds that they (his mom's hunting rifles) weren’t also “semi-automatic”?

For hunting there's no need for anything over 10 rounds. Even that is twice what you'd need. Heck, if you can't shoot very well don't ask your tool to make up for it, and you shouldn't be hunting anyway.

I like background checks. Sure, there are ways around them, but at least it's something. Waiting period? Fine. I've never needed to go whack down my silver dollars and immediately pick up a shootin' iron.

Wayback when (30 years), I have had guns stolen. An H&K91 and a Ruger Mini 14. They're probably still around, and I'm still married to them.

Now we should talk about bullets. I have to show my picture ID if I buy a box here in Los Angeles. I don't mind at all. I'm glad they got rid of the teflon-coated "cop killers", too.
As Pat Paulson said: "Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people". No need for the Zombie Apocalypse 100 round drum.

It's still a good thing that I don't run the Universe. Maybe.